jlwaters1 wrote:But the only opinion that matters is PC and JS. He was the "best available player" according to the 2 poeple who spent countless hours dissecting all the top-end prospects in the draft. And your going to tell me that they were wrong, base on your cursory reasearch? That makes alot of sense. I think I'll trust PC and JS over a bunch of internet posters.

bestfightstory wrote:Your assumption is Bruce Irvin vs all other rookie DEs. There were other options at that pick, including trading back.

Hey revisionist historian, they did trade back to draft Irvin. Plus the Jets were going to take him at 17...

Irvin was the guy they wanted, we all knew how raw he was and he had 8 sacks on pure speed/potential alone. Once he starts to learn new techniques and adds a little more weight, watch out. This kid is going to be special, limited role or not.

jlwaters1 wrote: Only Aldon Smith, Von Miller, and Reggie White had better years. So it defeats your argument.

Only If you look at sacks numbers in a vacuum devoid of context, which is what people who don't really understand football do.

Oh ok, so you can throw out names of guys who had worse rookies seasons and when that's brought to your attention that your examples are bogus, you say that no one understands football as well as you...ok...

bestfightstory wrote:Your assumption is Bruce Irvin vs all other rookie DEs. There were other options at that pick, including trading back.

Hey revisionist historian, they did trade back to draft Irvin. Plus the Jets were going to take him at 17...

Irvin was the guy they wanted, we all knew how raw he was and he had 8 sacks on pure speed/potential alone. Once he starts to learn new techniques and adds a little more weight, watch out. This kid is going to be special, limited role or not.

'revisionist historian'?

I am left to conclude that you do not understand the concept the moniker you have affixed upon me suggests.

"Some people here have been groomed to accept mediocrity and lame ducks, I'm on board with the vibrato!" -SouthSoundHawk "BFS is kicking ass in here." -kearly (8/9/2013)

Zowert wrote:95% !?!? That would mean the other 5% he had a sack or solo tackle. Other than Howard, Bruce Irvin has the least amount of playing time among D-linemen. He would only get a handful of plays a game, except during the three blowout games we had. So basically what you're saying is that Irvin's play is black and white. He can't just do his job, that he's either getting destroyed or making a big play.

I doubt when you're watching a Seahawks game that you're focusing on Bruce Irvin the ENTIRE time. Most likely you happened to see him get pancaked or taken out of a play a few times and came to the conclusion that he's not getting the job done.

I'll admit, I use to do this all the time. Until one of my friends put me in my place by telling me there are 22 players on the field and its impossible to focus on every single one of them on every play. Quarterbacks are basically the only guy on the field you're watching every play. Unless you're a scout for an NFL team and you're at a college game to watch one particular player. But you/we are not. We're fans. So to say that you have eyes and they see Bruce Irvin getting destroyed on 95% of the plays he is on the field for is ridiculous...

I watch each game usually 3 times whth a critical focus on different aspects each time. Don't assume you know anything about me or my viewing habits.

If you were so good at evaluating, then you would know that Irvin lead all rookies in sacks. He accomplished that with limited playing time as well... So what do you expect?

How can you take away that fact anyway? Its a good feat, especially for the role he was drafted in, while most were drafted to be full-time pass rushers. As a situation type pass rusher. Not an every down guy. You can argue that a player like Bruce Irvin should have never been picked up so early in the draft, but you don't get paid to do these things. Also, the Seahawks management have done a damn good job in the draft the last couple years. So, I think its best to trust what they're doing. Not someone who only watches games (with no insight on practices, workouts, personal, and in-the-locker-room behavior).

Last edited by Zowert on Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:07 am, edited 3 times in total.

bestfightstory wrote:Your assumption is Bruce Irvin vs all other rookie DEs. There were other options at that pick, including trading back.

Hey revisionist historian, they did trade back to draft Irvin. Plus the Jets were going to take him at 17...

Irvin was the guy they wanted, we all knew how raw he was and he had 8 sacks on pure speed/potential alone. Once he starts to learn new techniques and adds a little more weight, watch out. This kid is going to be special, limited role or not.

'revisionist historian'?

I am left to conclude that you do not understand the concept the moniker you have affixed upon me suggests.

TJH wrote:I would rather take the best available player appropriate to the draft position and pursue a pass rusher in a different slot.

He was the "best available player." Also you guys seem to forget we traded back with Philly and got more picks. So we were able to not only get the pass rusher we wanted we were able to get 2 more players. I beleive those were Jaye Howard and Winston Guy.

If you were to use hindsight with last year's DE draft picks, Chandler Jones came out as the "best available player" with where we picked. Full time DE, twice as many tackles, and only three less sacks.

Howard and Guy don't do a whole lot for me. IMO they're going to struggle to be anything other than subs on this defense.

jlwaters1 wrote: Only Aldon Smith, Von Miller, and Reggie White had better years. So it defeats your argument.

Only If you look at sacks numbers in a vacuum devoid of context, which is what people who don't really understand football do.

Oh ok, so you can throw out names of guys who had worse rookies seasons and when that's brought to your attention that your examples are bogus, you say that no one understands football as well as you...ok...

lay off your own kool-aid

No, I am saying that judging players by a single number on a stat column doesn't work. This really should not be that hard to understand.

Hawkfan77 wrote:Oh ok, so you can throw out names of guys who had worse rookies seasons and when that's brought to your attention that your examples are bogus, you say that no one understands football as well as you...ok...

lay off your own kool-aid

No, I am saying that judging players by a single number on a stat column doesn't work. This really should not be that hard to understand.

Oh OK, so you watched every single snap from the players you listed rookie years in order to correctly judge them being better than Irvin? Gotcha...

Hawkfan77 wrote:Oh OK, so you watched every single snap from the players you listed rookie years in order to correctly judge them being better than Irvin? Gotcha...

That's why the league keeps stats, so people can form opinions based on performance.

You don't have to be an expert to see that Irvin struggled during large stretches of certain games, and stretches of the season. Only time will tell whether Irvin was the correct pick last year. But if you're ONLY looking at 2012, then there are other rookie DE's that had a better year than Irvin.

bestfightstory wrote:Do I really have to walk you through this entire thread and hold your hand so you don't get lost??

The fact that they traded back to get to the pick where they selected Irvin, does not change the reality that they could have used that pick in any number of ways INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO........

Are you ready?

.....trading back again.

Get it?

to pick WHO, exactly? there's ample evidence to suggest that the player they wanted (Bruce Irvin) would have been picked at 16, which means they traded back exactly as far as they could, without losing out

TJH wrote:I would rather take the best available player appropriate to the draft position and pursue a pass rusher in a different slot.

He was the "best available player." Also you guys seem to forget we traded back with Philly and got more picks. So we were able to not only get the pass rusher we wanted we were able to get 2 more players. I beleive those were Jaye Howard and Winston Guy.

If you were to use hindsight with last year's DE draft picks, Chandler Jones came out as the "best available player" with where we picked. Full time DE, twice as many tackles, and only three less sacks.

Howard and Guy don't do a whole lot for me. IMO they're going to struggle to be anything other than subs on this defense.

3 less sacks and twice as many tackles... in way more attemptsyou know that chandler jones was an every-down player? in fact he played more snaps this season than all but 3 players for the pats. so in three times as many attempts he had only 2x as many tackles and 3 less sacks

themunn wrote:you know that chandler jones was an every-down player? in fact he played more snaps this season than all but 3 players for the pats. so in three times as many attempts he had only 2x as many tackles and 3 less sacks

This is getting lost in the seeming quest to be correct by the same damn characters who always have to be right.

bestfightstory wrote:Do I really have to walk you through this entire thread and hold your hand so you don't get lost??

The fact that they traded back to get to the pick where they selected Irvin, does not change the reality that they could have used that pick in any number of ways INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO........

Are you ready?

.....trading back again.

Get it?

to pick WHO, exactly? there's ample evidence to suggest that the player they wanted (Bruce Irvin) would have been picked at 16, which means they traded back exactly as far as they could, without losing out

Don't take this the wrong way, please.

If you can't follow or havent followed this conversation from its start, please do not jump in midstream. Nothing personal, but believe me-you have asked a question of a quote that was directed at a specific person in a specific conversation within a room full of people talking at the same time (that would be a metaphor for this thread).

There is context to the above quote. And your question is not relevant to the argument I was having with that guy.

This whole thread, in fact, is a classic .NET scenario.

A poll is posted. Less than 3% have an opinion and choose the option that is seen as extreme.Lynch mobs and goon squads descend upon the thread and assume the worst of everyone's views.I can't even follow it anymore, myself, and I have been here from the beginning.

My vote was for option #2, btw, if it matters. It's my opinion. It's an opinion. An opinion.

"Some people here have been groomed to accept mediocrity and lame ducks, I'm on board with the vibrato!" -SouthSoundHawk "BFS is kicking ass in here." -kearly (8/9/2013)

I voted for find someone better in the draft.... here is why.I noticed alot of plays for whatever reason he would drop back 2 feet and stand still.. while the play continued around him. I'm not sure why he did that. and If i get bored i will create a video of what i'm referring too, which happend a few times... To me a player needs to be 100% Drive all the time..

I may change my mind next year, but as of right now, i think we should look for someone better. we may or may not find that person.he does have speed but no pass rush skills, we knew he was not coached.... so he is basicly in year 1 period.... he will be better next year....i hope. i dont think he was a bad pick... but that wasn't the question ;

themunn wrote:3 less sacks and twice as many tackles... in way more attemptsyou know that chandler jones was an every-down player? in fact he played more snaps this season than all but 3 players for the pats. so in three times as many attempts he had only 2x as many tackles and 3 less sacks

You say all these things like it's a bad thing. Irvin doesn't have as many attempts because he wasn't good enough to play every down (as was fully evident by the Falcon game).

What we gave up in Jones is an every down lineman vs. a part time pass rush specialist. Carroll and Schneider risked Irvin's potential vs a sure thing solid DE in Chandler.

Like I said, only time will tell whether their risk pays off. But as of 1/18/2013 at 1:04PM IMO Chandler > Irvin.

hawks4thewin wrote:I voted for find someone better in the draft.... here is why.I noticed alot of plays for whatever reason he would drop back 2 feet and stand still.. while the play continued around him. I'm not sure why he did that. and If i get bored i will create a video of what i'm referring too, which happend a few times... To me a player needs to be 100% Drive all the time..

I may change my mind next year, but as of right now, i think we should look for someone better. we may or may not find that person.he does have speed but no pass rush skills, we knew he was not coached.... so he is basicly in year 1 period.... he will be better next year....i hope. i dont think he was a bad pick... but that wasn't the question ;

Well, in his defense (and at the risk of being labeled a lynch mob) we don't know what the play call was. It is common for DE's to drop into a really shallow zone coverage. That's how Red Bryant got his 2 picks last year.

This poster officially refuses to recognize SacHawk2.0 as a moderator or authority figure of any description.

If you can't follow or havent followed this conversation from its start, please do not jump in midstream. Nothing personal, but believe me-you have asked a question of a quote that was directed at a specific person in a specific conversation within a room full of people talking at the same time (that would be a metaphor for this thread).

There is context to the above quote. And your question is not relevant to the argument I was having with that guy.

This whole thread, in fact, is a classic .NET scenario.

A poll is posted. Less than 3% have an opinion and choose the option that is seen as extreme.Lynch mobs and goon squads descend upon the thread and assume the worst of everyone's views.I can't even follow it anymore, myself, and I have been here from the beginning.

My vote was for option #2, btw, if it matters. It's my opinion. It's an opinion. An opinion.

Oh it's pretty damn easy to take a post like that the wrong way. You've clearly followed the thread to note that I've quoted you and made a response to a series of posts you've made. So ok let then, since your condescending tone has really pissed me off let me quote the context of every single post you've made in this thread (that I was the first to reply to and have obviously just "jumped in to" and show you exactly how I lead myself to the post I eventually settled on (by quoting a post 3 pages into the thread which I obviously just picked at random, right?)

Now just in case you struggle to follow the following string of quotes, these are all things YOU have said, I've had to delete a few embedded quotes to allow this to be posted, but they're still your words and your points.

bestfightstory wrote:At this point, he doesn't seem worth the pick. He has time to change that perception. I understand that. Wagner has performance value equal to Irvin's draft position, IMO.

Hey hey! I have no problems here, Wagner (another "reach" according to draft "experts") performed well above what is expected of a second round pick, but of course, Wagner isn't a defensive end, so we wouldn't have filled the need that we had by picking him in the first round... and regardless we got him in the second round, I don't understand the logic here, we wanted a pass rusher... we picked a pass rusher, and he gathered more sacks than any other rookie this season.

bestfightstory wrote:Only 3 people voted 'bad'.

Relax Irvinites.

Most of us have a realistic and tempered approach to this.

Hey hey! another great point! "Only 3 people have disagreed with me so far, that means the rest of you are obviously morons!"

bestfightstory wrote:Your assumption is Bruce Irvin vs all other rookie DEs. There were other options at that pick, including trading back.

OF COURSE that's what you think, but then my train of thought here is, "what is the other option here? Trading back, definitely an option, but you risk losing out on the pick you want to make, if there's reasonable assumption to make that the player you want (Bruce Irvin) will be available later, then of course you trade back... if there is a team that wants to trade with you. We all know (of course) that we wanted to trade back from our spot in 2011 instead of picking James Carpenter there, but no team wanted to trade with us! How do you trade back if nobody wants to trade up? Of course that's a moot point in the end because the player we wanted was Bruce Irvin, and there's good reason to believe that he wouldn't be available if we traded back, as many suggested that with the very next pick, the Jets would have taken him! Now that's all fine and dandy, but maybe there's a better defensive end we could have taken anyway? Well you haven't addressed that point, in fact, what you've suggested in this very post - with the suggestion "your assumpting is Bruce Irvin vs all other rookie DEs", essentially saying that you don't think that's the correct comparison to make. That implies that you don't think there WAS a better defensive end available (that's interesting, considering he was the first DE off the board, essentially making him the best DE in the draft).

Still, on to the next post:

bestfightstory wrote:I understand that Carroll and Schneider said that, it doesn't take evaluating/critiquing their decision for conversation's sake off the table.

This was in response to the above post saying that they didn't feel comfortable trading back without losing out on a player they rated very highly (which of course, has appeared entirely correct with the suggestion the Jets were gearing up to take Irvin with the very next pick). You haven't offered any sort of analytical value with this post either, so it's an easy post to ignore, it's essentially another post saying "I didn't like the selection". Why? Why didn't you like this selection, you're criticising their decision but you have made no argument to suggest why you believe it's a poor decision.

bestfightstory wrote:Ummm that is obviously a matter of opinion.

Great point. Next.

bestfightstory wrote:

jlwaters1 wrote:But the only opinion that matters is PC and JS. He was the "best available player" according to the 2 poeple who spent countless hours dissecting all the top-end prospects in the draft. And your going to tell me that they were wrong, base on your cursory reasearch? That makes alot of sense. I think I'll trust PC and JS over a bunch of internet posters.

But out of curiosity, who do you suppose was "worthy" of the pick?

Well. Russell Wilson and Bobby Wagner, for two.

Well done again! We should have used our first and second round picks on those two and hoped for what we could manage with the third round pick instead of aiming for those two later. I don't understand this point, Russell Wilson was worthy of the third overall pick, but if you can get him with the 75th, why would you waste that pick on him? Your argument is slowly falling to pieces here (because obviously it was solid from the very start)

bestfightstory wrote:'revisionist historian'?

I am left to conclude that you do not understand the concept the moniker you have affixed upon me suggests.

Once again another attack on the poster rather than the post, I swiftly ignored this one because it was totally irrelevant to the point being made, it certainly appeared by this point that you were losing grasp of the discussion (argument) you were trying to have

bestfightstory wrote:Do I really have to walk you through this entire thread and hold your hand so you don't get lost??

The fact that they traded back to get to the pick where they selected Irvin, does not change the reality that they could have used that pick in any number of ways INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO........

Are you ready?

.....trading back again.

Get it?

This takes me all the way back to the first post I made in response to you - you can only trade back if someone wants to trade up, and of course, it's only worth trading back if you think you can get a better value for talent. For the 15th pick what do you expect? you can trade down to the lower reaches of the 1st round and pick up a low 3rd round pick in addition, that gets us chandler jones (a player with less impact with more opportunity to MAKE impact) and who else? another depth player likely to make little impact, say for example we traded with NE and took Jones with their pick (and they took Irvin, a possible scenario), who taken in the third round do you think we really missed out on that would have improved our team?

themunn wrote:3 less sacks and twice as many tackles... in way more attemptsyou know that chandler jones was an every-down player? in fact he played more snaps this season than all but 3 players for the pats. so in three times as many attempts he had only 2x as many tackles and 3 less sacks

You say all these things like it's a bad thing. Irvin doesn't have as many attempts because he wasn't good enough to play every down (as was fully evident by the Falcon game).

What we gave up in Jones is an every down lineman vs. a part time pass rush specialist. Carroll and Schneider risked Irvin's potential vs a sure thing solid DE in Chandler.

Like I said, only time will tell whether their risk pays off. But as of 1/18/2013 at 1:04PM IMO Chandler > Irvin.

Who does he replace as an every-down lineman? Is there a single rookie in the entire draft that would displace our starting front four? I don't think that's the case, we have a pretty complete team and filling it with specialists who do what they do well is fine by me. If we spent a first round pick on a running back who only returns the ball from kickoffs... but does that better than most in the league he's not an every down running back, but he's doing the job he was drafted to do as well as can be expected

themunn wrote:Who does he replace as an every-down lineman? Is there a single rookie in the entire draft that would displace our starting front four? I don't think that's the case, we have a pretty complete team and filling it with specialists who do what they do well is fine by me. If we spent a first round pick on a running back who only returns the ball from kickoffs... but does that better than most in the league he's not an every down running back, but he's doing the job he was drafted to do as well as can be expected

Are you telling me it wouldn't have been nice to have Fletcher Cox (40 tackles, four sacks) or Michael Brockers (39 tackles, four sacks) next to Mebane in the middle caving in the pocket on a full time basis........rather than a project that might never pan out?

I love Bruce, he's got some serious heart and I hope he turns into a great NFL DE. But that doesn't negate the fact that he was a reach with the #15 pick. ANY top 15 pick should be a bona fide starter, not a part timer......and so far he's only a part timer.

themunn wrote:Who does he replace as an every-down lineman? Is there a single rookie in the entire draft that would displace our starting front four? I don't think that's the case, we have a pretty complete team and filling it with specialists who do what they do well is fine by me. If we spent a first round pick on a running back who only returns the ball from kickoffs... but does that better than most in the league he's not an every down running back, but he's doing the job he was drafted to do as well as can be expected

Are you telling me it wouldn't have been nice to have Fletcher Cox (40 tackles, four sacks) or Michael Brockers (39 tackles, four sacks) next to Mebane in the middle caving in the pocket on a full time basis........rather than a project that might never pan out?

I love Bruce, he's got some serious heart and I hope he turns into a great NFL DE. But that doesn't negate the fact that he was a reach with the #15 pick. ANY top 15 pick should be a bona fide starter, not a part timer......and so far he's only a part timer.

Aldon Smith was a part timer his first year, too. He's seemed to develop pretty well.

volsunghawk wrote:Aldon Smith was a part timer his first year, too. He's seemed to develop pretty well.

He also had over twice as many tackles and almost twice as many sacks.

Irvin certainly has Smith type potential, but it might take til year 4 or 5 for that to happen. Smith was a much more polished DE coming out of Missouri, even as young as he was.......which is pretty scary.

volsunghawk wrote:Aldon Smith was a part timer his first year, too. He's seemed to develop pretty well.

He also had over twice as many tackles and almost twice as many sacks.

Irvin certainly has Smith type potential, but it might take til year 4 or 5 for that to happen. Smith was a much more polished DE coming out of Missouri, even as young as he was.......which is pretty scary.

Point is, he was still a part-timer. He developed. No, Irvin isn't on his level yet - and may never be - but the way SF has brought Smith along suggests that a part-time player who was identified as a pass rush specialist can develop into an every down player and expand his repertoire.

There are some folks in this thread who seem unwilling to give that same opportunity for development to Irvin, instead calling him a disappointment or bust or whatever right after he set a Seahawks rookie record for sacks. I wonder if some of these folks are the same ones who were prepared to declare Russell Okung a bust and made of glass after his rookie season, or who decided Max Unger was useless after his first year.

volsunghawk wrote:Aldon Smith was a part timer his first year, too. He's seemed to develop pretty well.

He also had over twice as many tackles and almost twice as many sacks.

Irvin certainly has Smith type potential, but it might take til year 4 or 5 for that to happen. Smith was a much more polished DE coming out of Missouri, even as young as he was.......which is pretty scary.

Point is, he was still a part-timer. He developed. No, Irvin isn't on his level yet - and may never be - but the way SF has brought Smith along suggests that a part-time player who was identified as a pass rush specialist can develop into an every down player and expand his repertoire.

There are some folks in this thread who seem unwilling to give that same opportunity for development to Irvin, instead calling him a disappointment or bust or whatever right after he set a Seahawks rookie record for sacks. I wonder if some of these folks are the same ones who were prepared to declare Russell Okung a bust and made of glass after his rookie season, or who decided Max Unger was useless after his first year.

Or James Carpenter. Or Koren Robinson. Or Chris McIntosh. Or Owen Gill.

(Don't get mad at me, bro. Remember, I picked #2.)

I wouldn't put Irvin in Either of those player groupings.

"Some people here have been groomed to accept mediocrity and lame ducks, I'm on board with the vibrato!" -SouthSoundHawk "BFS is kicking ass in here." -kearly (8/9/2013)

If Bruce's Twitter is any indication, he's VERY dedicated and passionate about getting better and proving the draft-day doubters wrong. Anyway, are we really going to pick apart these guys' interview demeanors now? Geez, would hate to see what you guys would say about Marshawn.

Bruce had a very good year. His presence was felt and he contributed. Came up huge on two plays in a wildcard PLAYOFF game. Seems the PC/JS regime's drafting success is leading some onlookers to get mighty spoiled and entitled. It's like a guy is deemed an immediate bust if they aren't a top 3 DROY or OROY candidate. Give these guys a chance to develop and appreciate their immediate contributions. Who knows what kind of career Bruce will have, but he showed some early promise in year one. Don't know how you can deny that.

Sgt. Largent wrote:He also had over twice as many tackles and almost twice as many sacks.

Irvin certainly has Smith type potential, but it might take til year 4 or 5 for that to happen. Smith was a much more polished DE coming out of Missouri, even as young as he was.......which is pretty scary.

Point is, he was still a part-timer. He developed. No, Irvin isn't on his level yet - and may never be - but the way SF has brought Smith along suggests that a part-time player who was identified as a pass rush specialist can develop into an every down player and expand his repertoire.

There are some folks in this thread who seem unwilling to give that same opportunity for development to Irvin, instead calling him a disappointment or bust or whatever right after he set a Seahawks rookie record for sacks. I wonder if some of these folks are the same ones who were prepared to declare Russell Okung a bust and made of glass after his rookie season, or who decided Max Unger was useless after his first year.

Or James Carpenter. Or Koren Robinson. Or Chris McIntosh. Or Owen Gill.

(Don't get mad at me, bro. Remember, I picked #2.)

I wouldn't put Irvin in Either of those player groupings.

I wouldn't, either, honestly, because it's far too early to determine, imo.

We hear all the time about "the rookie wall" or about it taking time for rookies to adjust to the speed of the NFL, or to develop the body mass necessary to really excel. So if a rookie struggles to make a significant impact - even if they're a 1st rounder - I tend to see that more as something not really surprising, but par for the course. It's awesome when we find a rookie who shines rather than struggles, but usually they do a bit of both. And Irvin did have moments where he shined this year, just like he had moments where he struggled.

In the end, I just don't think you can accurately predict whether a player is a scrub or a star in just their first year unless you're dealing with a clear outlier (like Wilson). I think each player needs time with the team for development, both physically and in his understanding of the scheme, to really find out what we have in him.

volsunghawk wrote:We hear all the time about "the rookie wall" or about it taking time for rookies to adjust to the speed of the NFL, or to develop the body mass necessary to really excel. So if a rookie struggles to make a significant impact - even if they're a 1st rounder - I tend to see that more as something not really surprising, but par for the course. It's awesome when we find a rookie who shines rather than struggles, but usually they do a bit of both. And Irvin did have moments where he shined this year, just like he had moments where he struggled.

In the end, I just don't think you can accurately predict whether a player is a scrub or a star in just their first year unless you're dealing with a clear outlier (like Wilson). I think each player needs time with the team for development, both physically and in his understanding of the scheme, to really find out what we have in him.

Of course. You are absolutely right.

"Some people here have been groomed to accept mediocrity and lame ducks, I'm on board with the vibrato!" -SouthSoundHawk "BFS is kicking ass in here." -kearly (8/9/2013)

volsunghawk wrote:In the end, I just don't think you can accurately predict whether a player is a scrub or a star in just their first year unless you're dealing with a clear outlier (like Wilson). I think each player needs time with the team for development, both physically and in his understanding of the scheme, to really find out what we have in him.

I'm with ya. I just don't like all the "OMG IRVIN'S THE BEST EVER PICK AND NO OTHER D-LINEMAN WOULD HAVE BEEN AS GOOD ON OUR TEAM!!!!!!!!" mentality.

The fact is just about any of the other DL picks in the top 20 would have done well on our line. What we're banking on is the potential of Irvin being great.........as opposed to just serviceable.

Jeez, I would hope by now that people would understand that he was a raw player with great speed coming in, with still being raw he provided pressure a lot and got his sacks. Having Quinn here I think will unleash the beast that we will see for years to come. He has the right attitude and skills that you can't coach. Speed and a desire to prove himself and people wrong.

With Quinn here he will be double digit next year I would bank on it. I also expect to see him stronger and bigger by a few more pungds. I think I read he put on 15 to 20 more from his college weight. That alone is hard for a guy to assimulate and continue to perform at a high level. With training and technique we will see him be much more comfortable at that weight and he will regain more of his burst.

To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!! Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. Member of the 38 club.

Call it what you wanna call it... Rookie hangover.. Rookie Wall... 2nd year slump... But if there is any player who I think that will happen to, it's Bruce Irvin. I am basing this on his visible personality and work ethic. I think he will be a letdown next year but will eventually develop into a solid player in a few years.

If you can't follow or havent followed this conversation from its start, please do not jump in midstream. Nothing personal, but believe me-you have asked a question of a quote that was directed at a specific person in a specific conversation within a room full of people talking at the same time (that would be a metaphor for this thread).

There is context to the above quote. And your question is not relevant to the argument I was having with that guy.

This whole thread, in fact, is a classic .NET scenario.

A poll is posted. Less than 3% have an opinion and choose the option that is seen as extreme.Lynch mobs and goon squads descend upon the thread and assume the worst of everyone's views.I can't even follow it anymore, myself, and I have been here from the beginning.

My vote was for option #2, btw, if it matters. It's my opinion. It's an opinion. An opinion.

'

Jesus... Why are you so condescending?

I think "themunn" was actually following your posts the best they could have possibly been followed. Actually, wait.. He went back and quoted most of your posts to prove it.. This one - Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:11 pm.. Didn't see that, my bad.

Just relax a bit man. Seems to me like you attack the poster rather than respond to their actual post. Not all the time, but from this thread, that's what it looks like.

If you can't follow or havent followed this conversation from its start, please do not jump in midstream. Nothing personal, but believe me-you have asked a question of a quote that was directed at a specific person in a specific conversation within a room full of people talking at the same time (that would be a metaphor for this thread).

There is context to the above quote. And your question is not relevant to the argument I was having with that guy.

This whole thread, in fact, is a classic .NET scenario.

A poll is posted. Less than 3% have an opinion and choose the option that is seen as extreme.Lynch mobs and goon squads descend upon the thread and assume the worst of everyone's views.I can't even follow it anymore, myself, and I have been here from the beginning.

My vote was for option #2, btw, if it matters. It's my opinion. It's an opinion. An opinion.

'

Jesus... Why are you so condescending?

I think "themunn" was actually following your posts the best they could have possibly been followed. Actually, wait.. He went back and quoted most of your posts to prove it.. This one - Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:11 pm.. Didn't see that, my bad.

Just relax a bit man. Seems to me like you attack the poster rather than respond to their actual post. Not all the time, but from this thread, that's what it looks like.

You missed more than that, but I am not going to get into it here. I am done with this particular thread. If you want to have this kind of conversation (or share other concerns about my internet identity) Id be happy to sort it out via PM.

"Some people here have been groomed to accept mediocrity and lame ducks, I'm on board with the vibrato!" -SouthSoundHawk "BFS is kicking ass in here." -kearly (8/9/2013)

I think you will see Bruce round into a more complete player next year. He might not have more or as many sacks, but will be a much better every down player. The kid had a great rookie year and I think that we will see him continue to grow.

While I will never say something as stupid as "sacks don't matter" I do believe that fans, in general, overrate sacks while not seeing other attributes that players bring to the table. Also, there seems to be an undercurrent of "he was drafted here, so he should be this productive by now" in many fan opinions. And usually, their idea of what "productive" means can vary a lot. I'm thankful that our coaches and FO have their own criteria to evaluate players and make decisions about who to cut or not.

I feel about Irvin about like I felt about Tate all along. Give him some time.

Talent can get you to the playoffs.It takes character to win when you get there.SUPER BOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS